It is a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have agreed to be members of the Committee. There is a variety of Bill Committees—this is my second today—but that just shows people’s passion for ensuring that we have good, focused legislation, whether tabled by the Government or tabled, as in this case, by Members across Parliament. This Bill is an attempt to address concerns about the offence of livestock worrying.

The provisions were originally in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I am conscious that people wonder why that Bill was paused. It started to become a somewhat unwieldy Bill that all sorts of things were being tagged on to that went considerably beyond the original purposes of that Bill. The Government, of which I was at the time a part, therefore decided to pause that Bill, but to come back with a more detailed one. I made that commitment when I was in office, and I am glad that, despite my having left office, the Government are still committed to the provisions of this Bill.

On Second Reading, I basically lost my voice—I think I managed less than a minute. I do not intend to speak for very long today, as I know that others are interested in raising specific points, but I want to summarise the Bill, as the notes eloquently do. I also thank officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for their help in getting to this point.

In essence, the Bill is an attempt at simplification. Clause 1(b) brings camelids within the definition of “livestock”, because animals such as llamas are starting to be farmed considerably more and to be managed in livestock settings. Clause 1(a) brings incidents on roads and paths within the scope of the offence, because as anybody who has ever been to a farm with livestock knows, livestock do not sit in one field all their lives; they are moved around, and we need to ensure that dogs do not worry the livestock as they are moved. That simplifies the situation: it not only makes it clear that dogs should be under the control of their owner or the person walking them, but gives assurances to farmers about what the limits are. Other provisions ensure that offenders will pay the expenses arising from seizing and detaining the dog, rather than those costs falling on the police.

Simply doing some modest extensions is an important element of clause 1. Rather than trying to cover every animal under the sun, as has happened in other jurisdictions, it is ultimately about keeping the Bill in line with what was intended, while ensuring that farmers can still be concerned about the safety of their animals.

Clause 2 basically updates the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 to ensure that seizing a dog is more straightforward. In particular, we are starting to see some phrases about dogs that pose a continuing threat. The clause says:

“(1) A constable may seize a dog if— they have reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path”.

The reason for doing that is to make it more straightforward for police to grab a suspected dog, in order to stop such behaviour happening and avoid the potential impact on livestock, without having to go to court or wait until an owner is convicted of an offence.

Clause 3 ensures that we can be more up to date about getting evidence—for example, taking dental impressions. A dog bite can often be distinguished by what is happening with their mouth and what has happened to the animal, which is particularly important when an animal has been killed. I am sure the Minister will explain in more detail why we are including both “attacking” and “worrying” in the Bill. Again, to give a simplified view, people should be aware that this is not just about a dog attacking a sheep, a cow, a camelid or a pig; just running around them can cause distress to the animal and severe consequences, such as aborting. It is about those sorts of things as well. There is even a story about how a dog ended up chasing livestock over the edge of a cliff. We need to ensure that not just what people would perceive to be an attack—direct contact with the animal by the dog—but worrying behaviour more generally is addressed.

From discussions with the police, I anticipate that most sampling should be quite straightforward, but a more detailed examination of a dog may be required at times in order to establish the connection to a specific incident. If it is deemed that that would be quite intrusive, the law requires a veterinary surgeon to be involved to ensure that the dog in question is handled appropriately.

Clause 4 extends powers of entry and search via application to a justice of the peace. There have been too many examples of people saying that they will bring in their dog and then they do not; the dog disappears, never to be seen again. It ends up somewhere else or something else happens to it. The clause basically enables a quick element of justice to be applied in order to ensure that evidence can be seized quickly.

Clause 5 covers the extent, commencement, transitional provision and short title. I am grateful that the Department agreed that we should try to ensure that the Act comes straight into force at the end of three months. There were discussions about England and Wales, and whether this an animal welfare matter, which should be devolved. Actually, this legislation is not specifically about animal welfare. It is keeping in line with the original intent of the 1953 Act. As a consequence, it is to be debated by the UK Parliament and does not require discussion by the Senedd of Wales or Welsh Ministers. I hope that explains why the matter is reserved and why a legislative consent motion is not required.

The schedule is a way of tidying up aspects of the 1953 Act. Paragraph 1(6) amends section 1(4) of the Act and talks about “attacking” or “worrying”, which ensures the Bill covers what it is supposed to.

I tabled Amendment 1 because, after looking at the original Act and having discussions with various organisations, I was concerned that it seemed that the penalties would be declining. I want it to be easier to get convictions, but I do not want to reduce the penalties available. I must admit that I drafted the amendment without going to the Department for further legal advice. I know the Minister is minded to accept its sentiment but would like the Government to table a cleaner legal version on Report. I am happy for them to do that.

We need to send a strong message to dog owners right across this country. We have just been in lambing season, and many right hon. and hon. Members have examples of awful attacks in their constituencies. We see on social media—it has been coming up a lot on things such as TikTok—that farmers are really frustrated that people are not in control of their animals, which can have a major impact. People are somewhat in denial about that.

It is suggested anecdotally that quite a lot of the problems are caused by dogs escaping from their homes. Their owners have no clue about it and would be mortified to know that their dog was on the loose. People have the power to shoot dogs that are worrying livestock, but not all of the farmers and one shepherdess from my Constituency I met had a shotgun licence, and not all of them wanted to do that; they wanted the owners to be responsible. Hopefully, the deterrent of a potentially unlimited fine will make people more aware of what their best friend—their dog—could be doing to other animals if they are not under good control with good recall. That is why I am keen to ensure the deterrent is sufficiently strong.